Thanks for the +1 Alan. I agree that we're leaving potential contributions on the floor. Doing more reviews is definitely a very good step in the right direction. Thank you! I see this Bylaws change as another (small) step in the right direction. I'm sure we can come up with more ideas.
I'll start a VOTE thread on the user@ mailing list. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’m +1 on this change of allowing simple cleanup changes without requiring > a full review. > > But jumping to this fix obscures a bigger problem we have as a community. > This fix only works for committers, not for non-committers who may also > contribute such patches. And it doesn’t solve the situation for > non-trivial patches. We’re leaving potential contributions on the floor > and keeping people out of our community. We need to solve this. > > One thing I’ve been doing over the last few months is set up a filter in > JIRA for components that I know well (metastore, acid, etc.) and then put a > recurring task in my task tracker app to review a patch every day. > Realistically I manage 2-3 reviews a week, but that’s 1-2 more than I was > doing before. I encourage my fellow committers to find something that > works for them. We need to improve the health of our community. > > Alan. > > > On Apr 12, 2016, at 07:56, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks Thejas for the suggestion & others for jumping in. That seems fine > > for me. 2 days also seems good. Holidays are different in almost every > > country so I wouldn't exclude those. > > > > I have followed the procedure used for the last Bylaws change and > created a > > new Wiki page here: < > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/Proposed+Changes+to+Hive+Project+Bylaws+-+April+2016 > >> . > > > > It includes this paragraph: "Minor issues (e.g. typos, code style issues, > > JavaDoc changes. At committer's discretion) can be committed after > > soliciting feedback/review on the mailing list and not receiving feedback > > within 2 days." > > I'm not a native speaker so feedback is welcome. > > > > I also fixed three typos in the Bylaws (and marked them as changed): < > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=62691925&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2 > >> > > > > Once the discussion settles down I'll open a vote thread on the user@ > > mailing list which requires a 2/3 majority of all active PMC members. I > > couldn't find a definition of "active" though. > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I agree we have a problem here. At least patches as small as this > >> shouldn't take too long to get reviewed. > >> > >> Knox seems to consider a very large set of patches as being under CTR > >> process. > >> I think hive is very large and mature project that I would lean > >> towards RTC process for most issues. I think we can make an exception > >> for very minor patches such as fixing typos and and checkstyle issues. > >> Maybe the process can be to solicit reviews for such minor patches by > >> sending an email to dev@ list and if no response is seen in 2 days, go > >> ahead and commit it ? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I've been a long-time contributor to Hive (5 or so years) and have been > >>> voted in as a committer and I'm very grateful for that. I also > understand > >>> that my situation is different than most or lots of committers as I'm > not > >>> working for one of the big companies (Facebook, Cloudera, Hortonworks > >> etc.) > >>> where you can just ask someone sitting next to you to do a review. > >>> > >>> I'd really like to contribute more than I do currently but the process > of > >>> getting patches in is painful for me (and other 'outside' contributors) > >> as > >>> it is hard to get reviews & things committed. The nature of most of my > >>> patches is very minor[1] (fixing typos, checkstyle issues etc.) and I > >>> understand that these are not the most interesting patches to review > and > >>> are easy to miss. I don't blame anyone for this situation as I totally > >>> understand it and have been on the other side of this for other > projects. > >>> > >>> Is there anything we can do to make it easier for me and others like me > >> to > >>> contribute here? I absolutely see the value in having "cleaner" code > and > >>> when done in small batches it's usually not very disruptive either. > >>> > >>> The bylaws currently require a +1 from a committer who has not authored > >> the > >>> patch. Knox for example has a different policy [2] where they > distinguish > >>> between major features and minor things which can be committed freely. > >>> > >>> Hive could adopt something similar or like a middle ground. These are > >> just > >>> two suggestions: > >>> > >>> 1) Allow minor changes (up to the committers discretion) without > >> requiring > >>> an extra +1 > >>> 2) Allow minor changes (up to the committers discretion) with Lazy > >> approval > >>> (i.e. wait 24 hours) > >>> > >>> Sorry for the long rant but I'd love some feedback on this and am > looking > >>> forward to contributing more in the future. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Lars > >>> > >>> [1] e.g. <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-12467> > >>> [2] < > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/Contribution+Process> > >> > >
